Both are bad. The left doesn’t want admit the Palestinians are trying to kills Israelis. Israel is defending themselves. They can’t explain why Gaza and the West Bank are even policed by Israel. Could it be the Arabs tried to erase Israel?
Comment on The left are officially full blown nazis now.
jimbolauski@lemm.ee 7 months agoI figure the reason peeps won’t reply is because he knows putting a burning cross in front of a church is a terrible thing but doesn’t want to admit swastikas on temples is just as bad.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 7 months ago
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 7 months ago
Why doesn’t Israel police Lebanon, too?
Let’s just assume it’s okay to round up people who hate you and try to control them. Your assumption, certainly not mine. Then why shouldn’t Israel also extend their police infrastructure to the surrounding Middle East generally?
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 7 months ago
They do in self defense.
The problem is Egypt won’t take Gaza back and Jordan won’t take the West Bank back.
That’s why they are out in limbo. Nobody wants them.
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 7 months ago
The problem is Egypt won’t take Gaza back and Jordan won’t take the West Bank back.
I had to look that up…and of course, it’s false. Plus, it’s as if Israel is just offering either territory to either country.
I’m calling it. I’m done.
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 7 months ago
Well, I feel like you’re missing the point.
Israel is doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to Jews. Presumably, the synagogue supports Israel’s genocide of Palestinians (I have no idea, frankly. It matters…but not at the moment). And thus, if you accept the new interpretation of the swastika as a mark of hatred and the wish for genocide generally (rather than the mark of hatred and the wish for genocide of Jews specifically), then the swastika acts as a protest against Israeli violence against Palestinians by attempting to remind them and their supports of what was done to them.
So, I’ll meet you half way: What would have to be done for a burning cross in front of a church to be warranted in the same way the swastika is warranted on a synagogue? Well, they would have to do more than “commit crimes”. They’d have to basically embody the ideals they hate. Just as Jews have become the Nazis for the Palestinians, the Black Panthers would have to terrorize communities, arbitrarily lynch its members, and generally violently enforce a sense of black superiority in those communities. And if a burning cross ended up in front of a black church in support of those atrocities, the symbol could be interpreted in the same way as the swastika on a synagogue.
Both are obviously bad, but that’s the point. It should be grotesquely offensive.
jimbolauski@lemm.ee 7 months ago
The black Panthers were involved in shootouts/turf wars with the black nantionalists, they kidnapped and tortured people, pouring boiling water on a member for 3 days before shooting him and dumping him in a swamp. Had female members savagely beat to keep them in line. Ambushed police officers, traffic narcotics…
Does that meet your criteria where you would condone someone going full klansman and putting burning crosses at churches and mosques that supported the black Panthers?
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 7 months ago
No.
They have to embody the ideals they hate towards another group.
Look, it’s fine. I get that it’s hard to understand. That’s part of the appeal of the original article, where it redirects you back to the historical meaning of the swastika and insists that it’s meaning is fixed.
jimbolauski@lemm.ee 7 months ago
No true scottsman, I get it. Ambushing police officers and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, ambushing black nantionalists and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, pouring boiling water on a person doesn’t count as hate.